There is a Vignale Vanguard which runs in the 1950's Goodwood revival races. Brian Pollard raced a Sportsman in the pre '57 Touring Car series back in about 1983, later replaced by a Vignale because the Sportsman was too rare and the Vignale was the same bodyshell but younger. I can claim to have ventured out on a couple of my first 12 Car rallies in a Standard Ensign, horrible handling after my Hillman Minx!

There is a Vignale Vanguard which runs in the 1950's Goodwood revival races. Brian Pollard raced a Sportsman in the pre '57 Touring Car series back in about 1983, later replaced by a Vignale because the Sportsman was too rare and the Vignale was the same bodyshell but younger. I can claim to have ventured out on a couple of my first 12 Car rallies in a Standard Ensign, horrible handling after my Hillman Minx!

The Ghansvard is far from the worse ever race car. The Vignales had from memory a twin SU high compression engine and either a 4 speed or a 3 speed overdrive. Different diff ratio and 'slightly' better brakes. And as a road car were a respectable driver, better than many from Ford or GM at the time.Though at this length a very hard car to race as the development on other makes was a lot greater. And Vanguards do rust too !!

So that would have been the original size of Vanguard engine in the later body?

We didn't toy with such stuff here. Consuls did sell here, of course, but were a minor player alongside the Zephyr in a market dominated by a 2.2-litre six.

I think they were all 138ci. Later may have been bigger. I was around Vanguards quite a lot as a kid, my father had them, as did a bloke I worked for who had both a Sportsman and a Vignale,,, in about 1970. Though my father only owned Beetleback models and Spacemasters both in utes and sedans. My first car in about 67 was his cast off 51 ute as a paddock basher.Most mechanical parts interchanged 49 to about 62. The 6 cyl motors were actually smaller capcity than the torquey old 4. Though in GT3s they go pretty good!

The Ensign was a downmarket version of a Vanguard, same shell but with the engine linered down to 1670cc. (Vanguards were 2088cc, TR2/3 were 1998) the wet liner design made it quite easy to come up with different capacities although where 1670 came from I cannot imagine! It was less economical and obviously slower than a Vanguard. The advantage though was that it had a four speed floor change box as standard.

I actually learned to drive on the Ensign, my father had bought it almost new because it was the right price and kept it for quite a long time for him because it was sturdy and good for towing. He had replaced it with a Zephyr when my Minx suffered terminal rust and the Ensign was just lying around in the garden doing nothing. It never actually had any rust problems, I'm told that Standards used a particular type of primer for just a few months when that car was built but then decided it was too expensive. Any car built in that period apparently survived against rust much better.

I didn't realise that it was not a standard fitting at the time but ny Minx had a Rapier anti-roll bar fitted.

Peter Garnier, Sports Editor of the Autocar, used a very special TR3A engined, disc braked Ensign as a company car for a couple of years, late '50's/early '60's.

Reminds me of a story... there's a little old gold-mining ghost town near Armidale in NSW called Hillgrove where an elderly gent had two early Vanguards. One had sat in his yard for many years while he drove the other.

When asked why that was he'd explain - "The other car had an oil leak when it was new, so there's oil everywhere underneath it. When this one gets too rusty I'll trot it out, it won't be rusty."

Reminds me of a story... there's a little old gold-mining ghost town near Armidale in NSW called Hillgrove where an elderly gent had two early Vanguards. One had sat in his yard for many years while he drove the other.

When asked why that was he'd explain - "The other car had an oil leak when it was new, so there's oil everywhere underneath it. When this one gets too rusty I'll trot it out, it won't be rusty."

In the 6 hour relay race at Winton, Victoria, Australia in late 1968 there were 2 teams with 4 Vanguards in each (Beetlebacks as Lee called them). Just kept on trundling round all day as I recall. (OT it was a notable race meeting for me, my second, and after 40+ years I had my second Winton race meeting 3 weeks ago, nothing seemed much different, great little circuit).

In the 6 hour relay race at Winton, Victoria, Australia in late 1968 there were 2 teams with 4 Vanguards in each (Beetlebacks as Lee called them). Just kept on trundling round all day as I recall. (OT it was a notable race meeting for me, my second, and after 40+ years I had my second Winton race meeting 3 weeks ago, nothing seemed much different, great little circuit).

Bob, if you turn left half way down the 'straight' you will find a whole new experience.Though the short circuit seems the same as it always was on my visits there in the 90s

And of course, the original Vanguard 4 first appeared in the Ferguson tractor, it had wet liners, so changing displacement was easy, though the three bearing bottom end was its weak point. I'm not a TR expert, but I think that the TR3 had a 1991cc displacement, which went up to 2138cc in the TR4. My Dad's Vanguard was 2088cc with a vinyl bench seat in the front. When Mum wasn't there he'd corner a bit more enthusiastically, and my sister & me would slide across in unison.

And of course, the original Vanguard 4 first appeared in the Ferguson tractor, it had wet liners, so changing displacement was easy, though the three bearing bottom end was its weak point. I'm not a TR expert, but I think that the TR3 had a 1991cc displacement, which went up to 2138cc in the TR4. My Dad's Vanguard was 2088cc with a vinyl bench seat in the front. When Mum wasn't there he'd corner a bit more enthusiastically, and my sister & me would slide across in unison.

I was told once that the first Vanguards released in Oz had engines marked as Massey Ferguson...

Very underated engine the Standard/Triumph/Ferguson 4. I believe Lawrencetune took them out to 2.5 litres with 180BHP on twin Webers. And presumably the twin cam "Sabrina" engine was based on the same block.

The Vanguard 6/Triumph 2000/TR5/6 unit was effectively the old Standard 10/Triumph Herald engine wit 2 more cylinders added. Not sure whether it was an improvement over the old 4 but presumably smoother.

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4I was told once that the first Vanguards released in Oz had engines marked as Massey Ferguson...

Noooo... never...

While it's often said that the Ferguson T20 (not Massey-Ferguson) engine was the same as a Vanguard, there's some very basic differences that make this a silly thing to say. The engine block, for instance, is huge compared to the car's block as it forms part of the chassis of the tractor.

Just to clarify a bit of this stuff:

The 4-cyl wet-sleeve engine was used in the Vanguard, the Ensign, the Triumph Renown, TR2, TR3, TR4, TR4A and in a different block in the Ferguson T20 tractor. It was never altered to become a diesel engine. The engine was also supplied to Morgan for use in their cars.

Capacities (corrections welcome)...

1670cc - Ensign (1957 - c1961?)

1786cc - Renown and some early Vanguard

1991cc - Triumph TR2, TR3

2088cc - Renown and Vanguard Phase I, II and III (c1948 - 1962)

2138cc - Triumph TR3A, TR4, TR4A, Ensign deluxe

The engine seems to have some design features carried over from the pre-war 6-cylinder engine, maybe someone with some knowledge of that engine can comment on this prospect?

The 4-cyl wet-sleeve engine was used in the Vanguard, the Ensign, the Triumph Renown, TR2, TR3, TR4, TR4A and in a different block in the Ferguson T20 tractor. It was never altered to become a diesel engine. The engine was also supplied to Morgan for use in their cars.

Capacities (corrections welcome)...

1670cc - Ensign (1957 - c1961?)

1786cc - Renown and some early Vanguard

1991cc - Triumph TR2, TR3

2088cc - Renown and Vanguard Phase I, II and III (c1948 - 1962)

2138cc - Triumph TR3A, TR4, TR4A, Ensign deluxe

The engine seems to have some design features carried over from the pre-war 6-cylinder engine, maybe someone with some knowledge of that engine can comment on this prospect?

I think the 1786cc. early Renown and Vanguard engine was a different unit altogether. A prewar Standard engine, maybe as used in the 1.5 SS Jaguar saloon.

ISTR reading somewhere that the 4 cylinder wet liner unit was developed from an experimental SV engine built by a US aircraft company, Lycoming keeps coming to mind.

Lee, apart from the fact that I'm not sure about whether or not there were wet liners, I don't think there's anything on the Vanguard engine that wasn't used on the pre-war SS engines built by Standard.

I think the 1786cc. early Renown and Vanguard engine was a different unit altogether. A prewar Standard engine, maybe as used in the 1.5 SS Jaguar saloon.

The 1767cc (75mm × 100mm) unit used in the Triumph 1800 and 1800 Roadster was the Standard-built unit as used in the 1½ litre Jaguar. Both the Triumphs later got the 2088cc (85mm × 92mm) Vanguard engine and gearbox as the Triumph 2000 and 2000 Roadster. The 2000 was renamed the Renown in October 1949 when it got a different chassis IIRC.I am pretty sure there was no connection between the 1767cc engine and the Vanguard unit - as Rod says, a different unit altogether.

While it's often said that the Ferguson T20 (not Massey-Ferguson) engine was the same as a Vanguard, there's some very basic differences that make this a silly thing to say. The engine block, for instance, is huge compared to the car's block as it forms part of the chassis of the tractor.

Just to clarify a bit of this stuff:

The 4-cyl wet-sleeve engine was used in the Vanguard, the Ensign, the Triumph Renown, TR2, TR3, TR4, TR4A and in a different block in the Ferguson T20 tractor. It was never altered to become a diesel engine. The engine was also supplied to Morgan for use in their cars.

Capacities (corrections welcome)...

1670cc - Ensign (1957 - c1961?)

1786cc - Renown and some early Vanguard

1991cc - Triumph TR2, TR3

2088cc - Renown and Vanguard Phase I, II and III (c1948 - 1962)

2138cc - Triumph TR3A, TR4, TR4A, Ensign deluxe

The engine seems to have some design features carried over from the pre-war 6-cylinder engine, maybe someone with some knowledge of that engine can comment on this prospect?

The TR3A was 1991cc, the same as the TR3. In fact, I don't think 'TR3A' was ever an official designation...correction welcome!

I think you are right, TR3A was never an official designation. The "TR3A" had the 1991cc engine but I believe the 2138 engine was optionally available, there was also a US only "TR3B" but I don't know what the difference was.

We seem to have wandered from the point, was the Vanguard a potential competition car which never was? In an article in Classic Cars Peter Garnier claimed that in 1959 no less a person than Colin Chapman claimed that the Ensign was a good handler, not my experience but I bow to Colin's better judgement. The engine we are generally agreed was a good one. Biggest problem presumably was 2088cc capacity, particularly in events when an "over 2-litre" class would have put it up against Jaguars. The Sportsman had effectively a 2088cc TR2 engine but has always been derided, not very many were made but could it have been better than most people seem to think?

The Vanguard, just like the 1622 Morris Major , and many other cars in history have engines that put them in the wrong capacity class. It does not mean that they are unsuitable, just outclassed in their catergory. Though really when the capacity comes into it, even as an under 3 litre it makes most cars of its era uncompetitive. Zephyrs, Vauxhalls, Holdens. or in a larger capacity a 3500 [or so] Rover, Buick etc etc. Though most were raced. And the Buick engine won a couple of World F1 championships in Repco form. But apart from GpA Rover SD1s never won a race in the production car. And even then that was a weight formula

Under our Appendix J up to 1964 the class limits were 1100cc, 1300cc, 1600cc, 2600cc and over 2600cc. There may have been a 750cc class too. Then came the Improved Production class, in this the limits were 1100cc, 1500cc, 2000cc, 3000cc and over 3000cc.

So a whole new array of cars might be competitive in their class.

Vanguards and Major Elites were getting a bit long in the tooth by this time, however, with Lotus Cortinas and 179 Holdens on the scene.

Under our Appendix J up to 1964 the class limits were 1100cc, 1300cc, 1600cc, 2600cc and over 2600cc. There may have been a 750cc class too. Then came the Improved Production class, in this the limits were 1100cc, 1500cc, 2000cc, 3000cc and over 3000cc.

So a whole new array of cars might be competitive in their class.

Vanguards and Major Elites were getting a bit long in the tooth by this time, however, with Lotus Cortinas and 179 Holdens on the scene.

Really with the Vanguards we were talking late 50s. The Major Elite started in what ? 60? Though personally I would prefer to race the Vanguard, especially in Vignale or Sportsman form.By 63 everything changed here in Oz, EHs, Valiants, Cortinas then ofcourse a year later Mustangs. Though initially it seems Norm raced the most unsuitable Mustang,, with 9" drum brakes all round! Just like his lighter and slower EH.

Though initially it seems Norm raced the most unsuitable Mustang,, with 9" drum brakes all round! Just like his lighter and slower EH.

I think you will find that was because he was keen to race the first Stang in Oz lee...wasn't it a gold colour? He imported it and got it on the track almost straight away as a fairly standard device then started modding.

It was in Team Neptune dark blue with white stripes. And you are right, drum brakes were still fitted, but it was fully modified apart from that. It was actually lapping as quickly as his S4 and beat Bob Jane's Jag while still running the 4.1 engine.

I think you will find that was because he was keen to race the first Stang in Oz lee...wasn't it a gold colour? He imported it and got it on the track almost straight away as a fairly standard device then started modding.

The thread on here somewhere said that the Mustang was raced in the factory gold once? When I say slower, the speed in the braking area is a LOT faster with the Mustang than the EH. With the same size brakes effectively,, oh and Norms bloody great steel flywheels attached to those hubs. That was from memory quoting Graham Moore. Those alone would have taken a lot of stopping.

And the cover pic is a drawing of the car in Neptune blue (February, 1955 issue), while the text mentions it's his first time out.

A week later he was at Catalina, no mention of drum brakes, two weeks further on it was Warwick Farm, again no mention, nor at Sandown a week later than that, when he came from the rear of the grid to win over a fairly hot field.

I doubt they weighed much more than an alloy wheel of the same size, if at all, Lee has said they'd take a lot of stopping.

Ray, a 15x8 offroad wheel weighs near 12kilo and those double centred things Norm used 40 years ago probably weighed more. A Superlite GTR that a lot of GpNs use these days are 7.2 kilo, they are a cast alloy wheel. A hi magnesium content Minilite is probably 1 and a bit kilo lighter. So yes there is a helluva difference, apart from the alloy wheels ability to disapate brake heat far better. Plus ofcourse the lighter wheel accelerates better and is a lot easier for the shock to control You can buy lightweight steel wheels to suit Speedway at just under 9 kilos, these days, though I would not put a road race tyre on it for any length of time as they will fail. As did the factory centres of the day. The 15" Ford centre was very prone for cracking around the stud holes as many full size US Ford owners have found, and they buckle easily also. And they are heavy. The EF EL Falcon wheel is a lot lighter and does not crack with speedway use, though they do buckle very easily. And they do not have the load rating for cars over about 2 tonne gross. The AU rim and centre is heavier [over 2k] and stronger and suitable for 1 ton carrying capacity vehicles.The Badday and Firerock 2 ply race tyres of the day were not particularly heavy, probably similar to a Hoosier GpN tyre. The modern steel belt radials are a bit heavier size for size, but do generate a good bit more grip. And a LOT more grip than tyres from 40 years ago.

You throw in terms like 'double centred things Norm used' very easily, Lee, but what are the facts?

The centres, by the way, are not the heavy part, the rims are the bit that add weight. Witness the extreme weight of the modern day 19" and 20" wheels to verify that.

And the discussion you launched is purely about weight, not about heat dissipation or anything else.

Read the thread about the car on here. Read any number of reports. Double centred rims!!. Which were used quite a lot in that period in the US. Steel rims can be made in various gauges these days. And are. Looking at a Legend car today at the again rained out hillclimb. They are the very light steel wheels I referred too, used on IMCA and AMVCA cars too. Wheras a rim designed for a 2 ton plus 4wd are a lot heavier guage. Or a spun steel rim is very light but also quite fragile. In fact you have to be VERY carefull fitting the tyres or they bend, and where tyre machines grab the rim it can dent them.,,, and the ones I have are the heavier guage ones! Probably a good thing on a 15x15" rim for my old classic speedway supermodified. Those rims weigh about 18lb, my mates LC3 Morris centred cut and welded 10" rims [widened to 15"] weighs literally twice that. I have been preaching too him for 10 years, meanwhile Ford V8 ring and pins break frequently!!

As for the centres not being heavy, think again some are quite heavy though I doubt as heavy as those 60s rims I referred too. Refer those LC3s! And they are stronger. The old original Sunraysia rims were cut from 10mm plate! Sometimes thicker. And they crack, regularly. A modern version is a pressed 3mm steel torqueplate style rim, is far stronger and a lot lighter. Though, again, for a big 4wd they have to be damn strong. For real heavy pick up a 16x8 factory Landcruiser rim, they are probably over 15 kilo.

And a modern 19x8 rim is really no heavier than you would expect, the tyres are to a degree lighter. Similar size 17 18 19 rims and tyres all weigh a similar amount,,, and all bend on potholes and going over kerbs etc. The rims on a 19 though are generally a bit thicker, in part because the wheel with 35-50mm offset from centre put a whole lot of rim 'in'. IF the wheels were central offset they could be made a bit lighter as the centre supports the load better. But that will not happen as modern suspensions and brakes preclude that style of rim. And if they were made from steel would be a damn site heavier too.

On my current 'Cruiser I replaced the steel wheels with ROH factory style alloys. [ROH made them for Toyota here] The steel rims coupled with 3 ply wall 122 load tyres are 25lb a corner heavier over the alloys and the correct size and 114 load tyres. The vehicle accelerates better, stops better and rides better. And should use less fuel doing all of this. On my previous Cruiser you could feel the difference of just one steel wheel on, that corner felt 'heavy' and ofcourse was.

Wheel weight, flywheel and centrifigual mass has always been a 'thing' for me. It really is cheap power and handling and less load on the driveline means they too are more reliable and last longer